A summit that could reshape the digital architecture of the West is looming. Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with a who's who of artificial intelligence leaders next week, a closed-door gathering that has sent tremors through the tech diplomacy circuit. The meeting, confirmed by sources close to the transition team, comes as the United Kingdom openly demands a central role in governing what may be the most transformative technology since the printing press.
For those of us who lived through the first wave of social media's unregulated explosion, this feels hauntingly familiar. Back then, we handed the keys to our public square to a handful of brogrammers in hoodies. Now, with AI evolving faster than any regulatory framework, we are once again at a precipice. The difference this time is that the stakes are existential. Think algorithmic bias at scale, autonomous systems making life-and-death decisions, and the erosion of digital sovereignty. The user experience of society itself is up for grabs.
Trump's meeting includes executives from the frontier labs: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and a handful of defence contractors. The agenda is unconfirmed but insiders whisper about a new executive order on AI safety, export controls on advanced chips, and the formation of a White House AI council. This is America flexing its unilateral muscle in a domain that is inherently global. Data does not respect borders. Algorithms do not need passports.
Enter the United Kingdom. London has been quietly but forcefully making the case that no single nation, not even the United States, should unilaterally dictate the rules of the road. The UK's digital secretary has penned an open letter to the UN, arguing for a 'Geneva Convention for AI' a binding treaty on lethal autonomous weapons and data sovereignty. It is a noble vision, but the tech community is split. Some see it as necessary guardrails. Others worry it is a power grab dressed in multilateral clothing.
The British government is not wrong to feel left out. With the European Union already drafting its AI Act and the US forging ahead, the UK risks becoming a passive passenger in the self-driving car of history. The irony is that the UK has genuine expertise. DeepMind was born in London. The country's universities produce world-class AI ethicists. And yet, without a seat at the table, its influence is peripheral.
What would meaningful UK involvement look like? It is not just about having a minister in the room. It is about cognitive diversity in our institutions. The US tech ecosystem is dominated by a certain mindset: move fast, break things, ask forgiveness later. The UK, with its more cautious regulatory heritage, could provide balance. It could champion the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability that often get sidelined when investors are demanding returns.
But there is a darker side to this story. The meeting itself is a reminder that AI governance is being shaped by a tiny elite. No open data, no public transcripts, no mechanisms for civil society input. This is not how you build trust. We learned from social media that opaque decision-making leads to backlash. If the public feels that AI is being imposed upon them by a cabal of billionaires and bureaucrats, we will see a populist revolt that could stall progress entirely.
I have been in enough boardrooms to know that these talks will focus on safety and national security. But the real question is about power. Who gets to decide what an AI can or cannot do? Who owns the data it trains on? Who is liable when it causes harm? These are not technical questions. They are political and philosophical. And they require a much broader conversation than any closed-door meeting can provide.
The UK is right to demand a seat. But a seat at the table is worthless if the table itself is illegitimate. We need a genuinely inclusive global forum that includes the Global South, civil society, and the voices of those most affected by AI. The future does not belong to any one nation or company. It belongs to all of us. And it is time we started acting like it.
